To ensure that a research approach is internally robust, all researchers must be aware of and explicit about their philosophical and epistemological foundations (Hoskin 2002; Remenyi et al 1998). Many have argued that every researcher is influenced by their individual contexts and world-views and this invariably affects the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions they hold and these in turn affect decisions concerning the research process (Denzin and Lincoln 2000; Guba 1990; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Remenyi et al 1998; Roberts 1993; Mason 1996).
As a researcher, being attuned to and explicit about one’s epistemological position at the start of any research process is seen as important in social and organisational research generally but even more so in the case of studies of human resource development. This is because unlike other social science disciplines such as sociology or psychology which have been the subject of long standing debate about their philosophical and methodological boundaries (Giddens 1996), human resource development (HRD) is a comparatively young discipline within the field of business and management studies, and is still working on establishing its philosophical and methodological parameters
HRD/Training can be presented and treated as a discipline in its own right and opposed to an activity that is multi-disciplinary but not sufficiently grounded in its own distinct body of knowledge to be considered a separate discipline.
Opinion within the academic and research community is divided about what constitutes appropriate methodology in terms of the study of human resources issues including HRD/Training – this mirrors the wider, well-established debate about what constitutes 'an acceptable approach' in social science research (Giddens 1996); Trigg 1997; Mingers 2000, 2001). Although sometimes presented as complex, the debate can be, as so clearly explained by Robson (2002), at its simplest level, reduced to a bipolar one of positivism versus anti-positivism. The comparative values of each position (which actually comprise an array of perspectives) are well established (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Chau, 1986; Robson, 2002).
In brief, positivism is based on the premise that the world is external and objective, the observer is independent and science is value-free. Further, it demands that social sciences research parallel that of the natural sciences and argues that it should be replicable, objective and additive, converging on truth through objective argument and with scope for comparing data (Wilk 2001; Robson 2002). Hoskin (2002) has argued that positivism's strength lies in its definition of parameters, controlling of extraneous variables and replicability and its weakness is its abstraction from 'the real world' and the 'reflexive complexity of human action'. On the other side, anti-positivists have argued that social science cannot be value-free, that it arises out of the exercise of interpretative faculties and that in itself results in a definite set of values and a distinctive way of seeing human beings (Bhaskar 1992; Trigg 1997).
The philosophical perspectives of positivism and anti-positivism find a practical outlet in qualitative and quantitative data generation and analysis (Robson 2002). In terms of social and organisational research, quantitative methodology is driven by a commitment to scientific measurement - it values quantification, standardisation, and precision and takes a relatively mechanistic approach. By comparison, qualitative methodology derives its rationale and energy from phenomenological and constructionist thought, amongst others - it values experiential data and takes a flexible interpretive approach –
see Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Main Features of Quantitative & Qualitative Methods (source: Cassell & Symon 1994)
Quantitative Method Qualitative Method
Quantification Interpretation
Objectivity Subjectivity
Standardisation Flexibility
In practice, both quantitative and qualitative methods serve as a blanket term for a variety of research techniques and both approaches are prone to a number of inherent constraints (Cassell and Symon 1994) some of which will be touched upon later in this chapter.
This broader philosophical and methodological debate has been replayed in the HRD/Training research arena. To illustrate this point, many have argued that there is no one single way of viewing HRD/Training research (McGoldrick et al 2001; Garavan 1998). For example, Darling et al (2001) argue for more positivist research and state that there is a need for more quantitative data about the HRD function and practitioners. Khatri and Budhwar (2002), Hunt and Boxall (1998), McGoldrick et al (2002) and Garavan et al (1998) contest this view. They argue that human resources as an emerging discipline would benefit from more open-ended research to balance and corroborate the highly structured data of positivistic studies.
It is common to have the positivist and anti-positivist presented as two opposing positions with irreconcilable differences. However, Lee (1991), Cresswell (2003), Mingers (2001) and Wilk (2001) and others challenge this binary way of viewing social science and suggest they can be mutually supportive and compatible. Wilk (2001), in attempting to fight off what he calls 'theoretical fundamentalism', advocates 'tolerant pluralism' and an approach which includes elements that are both objective and comparable as well as those that are contextual and subjective:
"Between the extremes, it is possible to see how separating objectivity from subjectivity impoverishes both". (Wilk 2001 p.309).
Further, and as a way of reconciling the constraints of the bipolar philosophies of the social sciences, some have argued for a multi-paradigmatic approach (Morgan 1990; Hassard and Pym 1990; Wilk 2001). This allows concepts to be drawn from a diverse range of disciplines and paradigms, and gives researchers scope to adopt whatever method fits the situation or problem. This is a persuasive perspective that had strongly influenced this study. In terms of epistemology, this study has adopted a pluralist orientation and multi-methods approach. The mix of methods – in this case, analysis of job advertisements, use of a questionnaire survey, use of focus groups and interviews, is intended to work with the inherent strengths and limitations of each approach by facilitating methodological and data 'triangulation' (Smith, 1975; Silverman, 2000) and thereby increase the validity and reliability of the research process as a whole (Wilk 2001).
Finally, before moving onto a discussion of the conceptual frameworks underpinning this study, a brief comment about the extent to which HRD is a discipline in its own right, or only a sub-set of HRM, itself an emerging discipline. While there is an ongoing debate about whether or not HRD should be treated as a discipline or simply as an inter- disciplinary area of activity (Swanson, 1996, 2000; Holton 1996; Kuchinke, 2002; McGoldrick et al, 2002; Ruona, 1999; Lynham, 2000; Galagan, 1986; Chalofsky, 2004), McGoldrick et al (2002) and Chalofsky (2004) identify that part of the problem HRD faces in being accepted as a discipline in its own right is that unlike most other applied
that at the present, HRD is constrained by the fact that there is no universal agreement about HRD’s distinguishing theoretical base (Chalofsky, 2004), while others suggest that the diversity of HRD practice renders it atheoretical (Swanson 1996; Holton, 1996). Swanson takes atheoretical to mean that it lacks a thorough, scholarly or scientific basis for the ideas or products it promotes (Swanson, 2000).
In its defence, Swanson argues that HRD is a young and emergent discipline, a work in progress and “…HRD is as much a discipline as many of the disciplines we often defer to” (Swanson, 2000 p.4). He cites Sociology as a comparator and suggests that HRD, like Sociology, draws on a range of psychology-based, economics and systems theories for its own unique purpose, albeit different from HRD’s purpose. Further, he argues that HRD must continue to grow and mature as a discipline (Swanson, 2000). Having discussed the broader methodology and philosophical aspects of HRD/Training research, the next section briefly describes the conceptual framework underpinning this study of the role, position and status of the HRD/Training function.